To my understanding, there is currently no scientific consensus on which interpretation of quantum physics is the correct one, if any. The most famous one, perhaps for historical reasons, is the Copenhagen interpretation, though I'm always unsure to what extent it is usually accepted.
Recently, I've come across a paper titled Probability in Quantum Theory by E.T. Jaynes, in which Jaynes argues that the Copenhagen interpretation is a prime example of a scrambling of epistemological (to do with inference) and ontological (to do with physical reality) views.
To supply some context: Jaynes has had much success solving long-standing problems in a variety of fields using his interpretation of probability as an extension of logic (it basically comes down to objective Bayesian inference). To Jaynes, probabilities represent only ones incomplete information about a system, a view that obviously encounters problems in quantum mechanics, where probabilities seem fundamental.
Now, with regards to the paper: I want to particularly focus attention on pages 4-11, where the main argument is presented. If I'm understanding correctly Jaynes' argument is not specific to the Copenhagen interpretation per se. Rather, he is using it as a convenient `target' - if you will - to make his point that probabilities in quantum mechanics are fundamentally different from classical probabilities (as is well known), and that the obvious next step is then to look for a new hypothesis space in which probabilities actually represent inferences.
The paper contains some mentions of the historical Bohr-Einstein (EPR) debate, and claims that much of the confusion surrounding it is the result of this scrambling of epistemological and ontological statements.
On to my specific issue then: I haven't been able to find any criticism of Jaynes' arguments, nor have I found many references that continue in the (to me rather promising) direction suggested on page 10: `to exhibit the variables of the deeper hypothesis space explicitly'. If Jaynes is in any way correct then this seems like a promising direction for future research, and so I am surprised to see so few papers published on the subject.
Am I missing any obvious criticism and/or publications? Or has this point of view simply become a victim of its controversial stature and the fact that Jaynes himself died a short time after its publication?
P.S. For extra context, this question may be seen as a follow-up to `Has Jaynes' argument against Bell's theorem been debunked?'. One of the comments there linked to this blog post, contending that Jaynes was indeed wrong in his assertion that a hidden variable theory could explain quantum mechanics. I agree with this criticism, but the paper that is the subject of my current question seems to take a whole new angle of attack. I'm not certain that this is the case (it might be that the papers linked in the blog post also debunk this new argument by Jaynes), so I would also appreciate any response that clears this up.